IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

"William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net> Tue, 10 August 2010 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <wmaton@ottix.net>
X-Original-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4C33A67B2 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPPM+olhdyeR for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iskra.ottix.net (iskra.ottix.net [IPv6:2001:410:90ff::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034833A67A4 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iskra.ottix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iskra.ottix.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7A031Ri022623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:03:01 -0400
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 iskra.ottix.net o7A031Ri022623
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by iskra.ottix.net (8.14.4/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id o7A0304m022618; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:03:00 -0400
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:03:00 -0400
From: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008092256460.10815@tvnag.unkk.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008091957430.24469@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051641520.24282@iskra.ottix.net> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008052249300.11871@tvnag.unkk.fr> <AANLkTi=1ePodG=2G9Ta-=5Fut6x-bQxvq8eLXsVgaUjh@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008092256460.10815@tvnag.unkk.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext>
List-Post: <mailto:ftpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:02:41 -0000

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>
>> Daniel, any thoughts/insight into the RFC 1123 discussion, which appears to 
>> update RFC 959?
>
> Yes, it seems to update or at least clarify a lot of RFC959 details but I 
> must admit I've never really used 1123 much as a reference. I really can't 
> tell at this point how valuable those sections are or aren't.

I'm wondering how big an exercise it would be to determine the 
applicability of these types of RFCs relating to FTP?  But anyways...

>> with inspiration from httpbis, I've been working on a collection of
>> FTP RFCs: 959, 2389, 2428, 2577 (for now).
>
> I would suggest 3659 to be one of the main RFCs for any modern FTP 
> implementation, thanks mostly to SIZE and MTDM in my own case.

+1

>> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.txt
>
> Very cool.

Yes well done!  If 1123 has been applied in practice, then perhaps 
obsolete that component of 1123 as well?

wfms

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email